Apparently some of the youngsters know very little about the Hillary for whom so many Democrat voters profess readiness. Seasoned journalists here at the mag, from the editor-in-chief on down, are taken aback daily to hear younger hands wonder whence her notoriety as a creep and a crook.
Thankfully the New York Times and others are coming forward with extensive exposés on the more recent monkeyshines of Hillary and ’em. The young ’uns are seeing us old fuddy-duddies confirmed in our misgivings — no mistaking that — but they wonder how we knew what to expect.
In the spirit of educating the next generation, then, here is a brief review of Hillary’s overlong career as a stye in the public eye, with an emphasis on her Greatest Hits.
She first came to the attention of the nation at her Wellesley commencement in 1969. Senator Brooke had spoken earlier of his empathy with the desire of the students to reform the system. Hillary began her remarks with a putdown of the Senator, saying empathy “doesn’t do us anything.” Hackneyed syntax notwithstanding, her chutzpah won accolades in an age that revered irreverence.
Brooke, the only black man in the U.S. Senate at the time, was too dignified a gentleman to hit back, or to hit a girl, or to sweat some collegiate twerp. He swallowed his pride while she was feted.
Jewish tradition teaches that one who receives honor from the embarrassment of another will not retain that honor in the long term. Additionally, it is a principle of Jewish theology that God pays both reward and punishment “measure for measure.” In that spirit, a rabbi told me when Obama shocked Hillary in the 2008 primary that God was paying her back for her conduct to Brooke by dishonoring her at the hands of a black Senator.
Wellesley graduates were responsible for a senior thesis, and Hillary wrote hers in appreciation of the communist provocateur Saul Alinsky. She thanked him in the foreword for giving her a lot of time and even offering her a job. During her husband’s terms in office she managed to keep that paper under wraps, although in the Internet Age it has emerged and is readily available.
That foreword is also notable for a prize bit of snark, mocking women homemakers and the men who patronize them. She wrote:
Although I have no “loving wife” to thank for keeping the children away while I wrote, I do have many friends and teachers who contributed to the process of thesis-writing.
Later she resurfaced as an attorney to the Democrats on the special Senate Impeachment Committee targeting Richard Nixon. She leapt into the fray with unmatched venom, writing two remarkable legal briefs arguing positions so preposterous they were clearly fueled by blinding hate.
The first argued that since impeachment of the President is not a criminal or civil trial per se, it was not entitled to the presumption of innocence. The burden of proof should fall on the President to prove his innocence rather than on the prosecutors (known as “managers of impeachment”) to prove his guilt.
Her second opinion followed the same line of reasoning that rights of a trial defendant do not accrue to a President under impeachment. Here she argued the President did not have the right to be represented by an attorney! He should stand in the dock and fend off the charges to the best of his own ability.
This time we do not need the rabbi’s help to see her receiving her comeuppance “measure for measure.” A quarter of a century later, her own husband was impeached and she immediately ran to procure the best attorneys in Washington.
Returning to activism, Hillary did legal work for Marion Wright Edelman’s Children’s Defense Fund. In this capacity she produced a legal brief maintaining another astonishingly radical position.
She argued that in every custody case, the child is entitled to a separate lawyer to advocate for the child’s best interest without considering the parent’s interest. The personhood of the child is not a function of the parent’s volition. Thankfully, no one took her view too seriously in that arena either.
As a criminal defense lawyer, her first client was a man with a record of sexual assault, charged with the rape of a fifteen-year-old girl. The defendant had asked the judge for a female attorney, in the hope it would help him sway a jury. The judge asked Hillary to accept appointment by the court.
The police lab tested the girl’s panties and found her client’s DNA in the crotch area. The case should have been a slam dunk for guilt.
However, the lab did not think to preserve the piece of cloth it had cut out from the crotch for testing. When the prosecutor tried to enter the panties into evidence, Hillary challenged on the basis that no DNA was found on the exhibited portion. She demanded the prosecutor produce the panel which had been excised. Because it could not be retrieved, the case had to be dismissed and the rapist walked.
There is an audiotape available on the Internet of Hillary telling the story to colleagues and chuckling about how she made that prosecutor look silly. These episodes give you a glimpse of her earliest exploits. (To Be Continued.)
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://thespectator.com/world.